INDIA'S MUSLIM TIME BOMB, THANKS TO GANDHI/NEHRU.
Date: 28 Jul 2008
HOW FAR IS THIS TRUE?
A SINGLE MUSLIM WILL GO FOR THE NEAREST FEMALE. HE HAS DEVELOPED SKILLS OVER CENTURIES. COLLECTIVELY THEY WILL GO FOR TERRITORY. ONCE TAKEN (LIKE FIVE PROVINCES OF INDIA IN 1947), NOT AN INCH WILL BE RETURNED OR SURRENDERED.
1. You wrote:
"M K Gandhi and his disciples among them Nehru were passionately committed to the unity of an India stretching from Khyber Pass to Assam and from Kashmir to Kerala. As Nehru wrote in his autobiography in 1936 , perhaps no country in the world had been truly made geographically, for unity as India .
Just because Nehru wrote something does not necessarily makes it right. India has been known as one geographical entity due it being surrounded by mountains in the north and northwest and no major country on the east; and ocean on the rest. But politically it had rarely been a single country except, for most part, for short durations under Ashoka, Akbar and the British. Even under Ashoka and Akbar the entire India never came under one head. The most India was one was only under the British. It was one only in the cultural sense as it was under Indic origin civilizations. But this unity was gone once the Muslims took it over. India from then on was never one nation culturally or politically. Anyone who believes the Muslims and Hindus just because they lived in the same country were culturally the same needs some introspection. The lamb and the tiger can never belong to the same genre -- or civilization as one may say -- however the lamb might like to think do. If ever there was any doubt despite Ghaznavi, Ghori, Khilji, Tughlaq, Timur Lang, Babar, Aurangzeb ... just to mention a few among thousands -- these should have been removed after witnessing the events starting with Moplah massacre to Calcutta and Noakhali massacres, from the mind of anyone who the slightest gift of rational thinking. But sadly it seems logical and rational thinking were not part of psychological make-up of egoistic Gandhi and Nehru. Ambedkar -- a more rational man could see it as early as 1940 when he studied the issue of partition demand by Muslim League in its 1940 annual convention in Lahore. He clearly called for partition along religious lines as he concluded Muslims and Hindus cannot live together and it will be better for the Hindus to have partition .. and not only that he also recommended complete population exchange.
Actually partition was a disaster for the Muslims and it was mishandled by the Hindus. Any shrewd politician who cares for his people should have jumped at Jinnah given opportunity to save his community from another visitation of Hell what his community had seen for centuries.
Were Gandhi and Nehru completely blind as not to see who they called their brothers voted overwhelmingly (86.6% in 1946 elections) for partition and they called it one nation indivisible? Could not they see what the Muslims wanted? What kind of unity is this?
Please read Jinnah's Presidential address to Muslim League in 1940 -- a master piece by all means of clear thinking and best wishes for Hindus -- completely ignored by egoistic Gandhi and Nehru.
2. You wrote "What he had also realised was that no country had as much potential for disunity --thanks partly to its misunderstood history.--as India. "
What do you exactly mean by "thanks partly to its misunderstood history", PLease expand.
3. "The partition in 1947 was undoubtedly a defeat for Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad and the Muslim leaders who stayed with Gandhi rather than support Jinnah's two nation theory."
Many Muslim leaders including Muslim scholars like Maudidi were against partition because they wanted the whole of India for Islam not just part of it which partition gave them. They wanted to wait a little and take the whole enchilada as Maudidi explained in Justice Munir's hearings in Pakistan in 1950s when asked why was he against partition.
4. "Before partition 25 per cent India was Muslim. After partition Muslim population was reduced to 11 or 12 per cent."
Your mathematics is a little skewewd. Muslim population of India was 25% -- that was undivided India with Muslim majority areas included. If Muslim majority areas like what became Pakistan were excluded Muslim population in remnant India would have been only slightly more than what it was after partition. Muslim population percentage in remnant India went down -- it was only marginally so -- due to two reasons:
a. There was some Muslim migration. Obviously not much.
b. HIndu population went up due to as almost all the Hindus were kicked out of what became Pakistan.
But anyway, the Muslim population percentage in remnant India today is more than it was in the same part of India before partition. Had India not been partitioned. Muslim population today would have been around 35%. India would have been de facto a Muslim country.
Partition gave Hindus about four decades of relative peace. Today we are back where we were before partition with Muslims capable of repeating Malabar or Calcutta or Noakhali at any time any where of their choosing. Just read the email sent to Indian media -- thanks to Indian leaders like Gandhis -- Mohandas to Sonia.
That will do for now -- respond to other points later sometime.
In a message dated 7/28/2008 5:30:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXcom writes:
You have raised a very interesting question. It is a bit difficult to answer this question in a short space but I shall try,
M K Gandhi and his disciples among them Nehru were passionately committed to the unity of an India stretching from Khyber Pass to Assam and from Kashmir to Kerala. As Nehru wrote in his autobiography in 1936 , perhaps no country in the world had been truly made geographically, for unity as India . What he had also realised was that no country had as much potential for disunity --thanks partly to its misunderstood history.--as India.
The partition in 1947 was undoubtedly a defeat for Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad and the Muslim leaders who stayed with Gandhi rather than support Jinnah's two nation theory Before partition 25 per cent India was Muslim. After partition Muslim population was reduced to 11 or 12 per cent. Both Nehru and Gandhi believed that no mass migration could have possibly completely separated people joined together over a thousand years. So a substantial part of multireligious,multiracial and multilingual India remained committed to one flag and a secular Constitution, perhaps not so much out of choice but also out of necessity. Bangladesh in 1972 was to confirm that religion and nationalism were not necessarily made for each other.which vindicated the stand taken by Gandhi and Nehru at the time of the partition. In fact the experience of the partition has exposed the two nation theory so often that no one seriously defends it anymore. What would have Jinnah made of a blistering speech given by the beleaguered Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto In June, 1995 telling those who had migrated from India that they did not belong to Pakistan because "they were not of our blood" and Niwas Sharief telling the Muhajirs to go back to India where they had came from. So you can well imagine what would have happened to those 12 per cent Muslim if they had migrated to Pakistan
Please remember the idea and forces which had divided the country once were not satiated. They would still try it again and again. In truth only one of the two arguments --Gandhi's or Jinnah's could be proved right by history. It is difficult to see how both could survive What had happened in 1947 was just a semi-colon in the evolution of the sub-continent . not a full stop. Muslim communalism took the river Indus away from India and put it in Pakistan. Now in the mid eighties the Sikh communalists were determined to create Khalistan . That leaves the big and emerging question :will the communalism of a section of the Hindu elite now divide Ganga and destroy India because the Sikhs who are struggling for a separate identity perceive that they were overwhelmed or the Muslims who stayed behind in India perceive that the Hindu majority was desparate to sunjugate them to adopt the Hindu way of life. So much for the Hindu India.
So the jury is still out considering who was guilty for the partition of India.and who died for its unity.